• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine

Fenix34

Member
I could swear I've told you to post context before.

Don't just post a video unless it is very clear what is happening (and even then, at least supplement it with at least a sentence). This is especially so for something that is not in English, as let's be real, that's the only common language we all have here (and yes, I know there are closed captions - that's still an extra step that some may not bother to take).
Ok. my fault. I am hurry to show video
 

Majukun

Member
What money and prosperity? Why didn't countries like Finland and Sweden want this money before, but are now suddenly interested in it?
finland and sweden were deterred by possible russian reactions to them siding openly with nato, but since this war demonstrated that russia might attack whenever they see fit, playing along with russia was not gonna make them safe anyway,so they went openly with the west,especially because it comes with defensive perks anyway
 

winjer

Member

Maybe NATO can make some military exercises near Belarus borders, forcing them to maintain a big chunk of it's army there.

Some years ago, the USA and South Korea would make a whole bunch of military exercises, near North Koreas border, during the harvest season.
Because NK is so lacking in mechanization of it's agricultural sector, they need a lot of man power for harvest season. So many soldiers are sent home to help with the harvest.
But with the USA and South Korea doing military exercises near the border, NK had to keep most of it's soldiers in standing.
 

Majukun

Member
You’re kidding, right?

Because I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but China have been laying claim to territory that isn’t there’s for a long time.

The only reason Winnie The Pooh hasn‘t tried to take Taiwan is because he’s seen the clusterfuck Putin has made of Ukraine.
other than territories with neighbour countries whose borders have never actually be officially traced (according to the internet,i'm no expert),the two disputes that have made the most noise recently in the news have been

taiwan: former part of china, given to japan at the end of the sinojapanese war but managed to keep their own identity from both japan and china during this period.ended up being given back to china at the end of ww2. They are officially part of china despite the kuomintang leaders fleeing there and claiming statehood.
While from a self determination point of view the taiwanese have the right to independence,self determination is not an officially universally recognised right (unless we want also to recognise ,say,catalogna or the basque region as "not spain", or open doors to a secession of states ffrom the US just because their population feels like it), so even if unpopular, from a "legal" point of view (despite no world police so no way to enforce it), Taiwan is no less part of China than a lot of other territories around the world that got reassigned at the end of wars in the centuries.

Hong kong: officially given up by the british empire to China in 1997 and thus part of china, but once again so detatched from mainstream china culture than they declare "statehood", but once again, self determination is not a thing, yada,yada

This at least what I read about these situations, i am in no way an expert and very aware of the dunning kruger effect, but if the situation is this, while my simpaties go with the population of those territories and would hope that they get their independence, China claiming these are part of its territories is less expansionism/imperialism and more claiming right on what is,on paper, theirs.


buuut we are going very OT i fear
 

The Simpsons GIF by MOODMAN
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
other than territories with neighbour countries whose borders have never actually be officially traced (according to the internet,i'm no expert),the two disputes that have made the most noise recently in the news have been

taiwan: former part of china, given to japan at the end of the sinojapanese war but managed to keep their own identity from both japan and china during this period.ended up being given back to china at the end of ww2. They are officially part of china despite the kuomintang leaders fleeing there and claiming statehood.
While from a self determination point of view the taiwanese have the right to independence,self determination is not an officially universally recognised right (unless we want also to recognise ,say,catalogna or the basque region as "not spain", or open doors to a secession of states ffrom the US just because their population feels like it), so even if unpopular, from a "legal" point of view (despite no world police so no way to enforce it), Taiwan is no less part of China than a lot of other territories around the world that got reassigned at the end of wars in the centuries.

Hong kong: officially given up by the british empire to China in 1997 and thus part of china, but once again so detatched from mainstream china culture than they declare "statehood", but once again, self determination is not a thing, yada,yada

This at least what I read about these situations, i am in no way an expert and very aware of the dunning kruger effect, but if the situation is this, while my simpaties go with the population of those territories and would hope that they get their independence, China claiming these are part of its territories is less expansionism/imperialism and more claiming right on what is,on paper, theirs.


buuut we are going very OT i fear

That's not all we're way off on....
 

k1m1d4n

Member
With the annexation of mentioned regions tomorrow, what is the possibility of Russia justifying an increase in aggression towards Ukraine by the simple fact that Ukrainians are now """""""officially""""""" attacking Russian territory?
Also with this annexation is it possible that Russia will start drafting the people from these regions, even all the ones that didn't participate (the true 97%) and start throwing Ukrainians against Ukrainians?
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
This at least what I read about these situations, i am in no way an expert and very aware of the dunning kruger effect, but if the situation is this, while my simpaties go with the population of those territories and would hope that they get their independence, China claiming these are part of its territories is less expansionism/imperialism and more claiming right on what is,on paper, theirs.

I'm sure the people of Tibet would disagree with this vociferously.
 

Lasha

Member
other than territories with neighbour countries whose borders have never actually be officially traced (according to the internet,i'm no expert),the two disputes that have made the most noise recently in the news have been

taiwan: former part of china, given to japan at the end of the sinojapanese war but managed to keep their own identity from both japan and china during this period.ended up being given back to china at the end of ww2. They are officially part of china despite the kuomintang leaders fleeing there and claiming statehood.
While from a self determination point of view the taiwanese have the right to independence,self determination is not an officially universally recognised right (unless we want also to recognise ,say,catalogna or the basque region as "not spain", or open doors to a secession of states ffrom the US just because their population feels like it), so even if unpopular, from a "legal" point of view (despite no world police so no way to enforce it), Taiwan is no less part of China than a lot of other territories around the world that got reassigned at the end of wars in the centuries.

Hong kong: officially given up by the british empire to China in 1997 and thus part of china, but once again so detatched from mainstream china culture than they declare "statehood", but once again, self determination is not a thing, yada,yada

This at least what I read about these situations, i am in no way an expert and very aware of the dunning kruger effect, but if the situation is this, while my simpaties go with the population of those territories and would hope that they get their independence, China claiming these are part of its territories is less expansionism/imperialism and more claiming right on what is,on paper, theirs.


buuut we are going very OT i fear


The Taiwanese don't need to declare statehood. The PRC separatists never took Taiwan. The RoC is the continuous government of China from its perspective since the war has never ended. It also happens to be an ark of Chinese culture since the Russian backed communists burned everything of value to the ground. Hong Kong isn't a contentious issue though. The UK leased the land and gave it back.

Russians in Eastern Ukraine, or anywhere, do not need a right to self determination because their "people" have their own country: Russia. Self determination is for peoples as in Russians, Armenians, Jews, Yakutians, Akom, etc. Its not a right for non-indigenous minorities to secede and form microstates at every national border.
 

winjer

Member
This war is a shit show but is now turning into a unpredictable shit show .. what a mess .

I think it seemed more unpredictable during the first few months of the war. When Russia still had lots of relatively modern equipment, their best troops, and Ukraine was still scrouging army´s from it's populace.
But since then, Russia has lost most of it's modern equipment, has little to no air superiority, moral is at a low, new recruits are untrained, it's pulling AK-M's and T-62's from deep storage, it's male population is running away from the country, the economy is in the shitter, and the list of problems just goes on and on.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has received lots of modern equipment from the USA and EU, several soldiers were trained in western countries with modern tactics and equipment, moral is much higher than with Russian soldiers, the economy is also in the shitter but they are receiving help from the USA and EU, and they have the momentum with some recent important wins.

The war is still going to be tough and bloody, but I think that Ukraine as an edge. And with Russia falling apart at the seams, this advantage might grow even further.
 

Mikado

Member
Honestly the tactic of dumping hundreds of thousands of their own - what are for all intents and purposes - untrained and under-equipped civilians into the middle of the battle is a fucking travesty. I love me a dead orc as much as the next person but Ukraine as the "Good Guy" can't just turn fields of surrendering conscripts into catfood. They need to be captured, processed, stored, fed etc. It's a logistical nightmare.

To be clear - the lack of equipment and food and support is not a flaw in this particular operation, it's a feature. It's likely that at a certain scale, a surrendering unarmed orc conscript does more damage to the opposition than an inexperienced orc soldier who dies on the battlefield from an artillery strike.

Edit: And lest anyone think that I think this is some N-dimensional chess, it's not. It's insane desperation of the highest order.
 
Last edited:

Majukun

Member
The Taiwanese don't need to declare statehood. The PRC separatists never took Taiwan. The RoC is the continuous government of China from its perspective since the war has never ended. It also happens to be an ark of Chinese culture since the Russian backed communists burned everything of value to the ground. Hong Kong isn't a contentious issue though. The UK leased the land and gave it back.

Russians in Eastern Ukraine, or anywhere, do not need a right to self determination because their "people" have their own country: Russia. Self determination is for peoples as in Russians, Armenians, Jews, Yakutians, Akom, etc. Its not a right for non-indigenous minorities to secede and form microstates at every national border.
Playing that card is dangerous though, since gives China technically the right to attack and take Taiwan, since apparently the war never ended.

Self determination is the right for people in a given territory to decide where to stay, be alone as a new state or just get absorbed by an already existing one,never heard it being limited to people without a nation.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Honestly the tactic of dumping hundreds of thousands of their own - what are for all intents and purposes - untrained and under-equipped civilians into the middle of the battle is a fucking travesty. I love me a dead orc as much as the next person but Ukraine as the "Good Guy" can't just turn fields of surrendering conscripts into catfood. They need to be captured, processed, stored, fed etc. It's a logistical nightmare.

Winter is coming and Russia didn’t provide winter gear… wink wink.
 
Is Russia still actively launching attacks on Ukrainians in Ukrainian territory? Yes or no?

If yes, then self defense has not been achieved, and Ukrainians still need to fight to push back the imperialist invaders. If no, then congratulations, Russia stopped being assholes to Ukraine. As of this post, the answer is still yes.

That's not a good benchmark. Korea was basically a stalemate, but both sides were launching attacks to the end. I'm talking strategic maneuver has ended. Again, as I've said countless times, we're basically back at the 2022 lines and fighting is in a low tempo phase of rearmament, now is the time for negotiation and IR to work.

What is your thoughts on the in-country reporting of Ukrainska Pravda that Zelenskyy and Russia were close to a peace deal basically in line with what I'm proposing but Boris Johnson (UK) at the behest of the US told him to basically keep the war going?


And I have also posted why your Minsk II idea is not feasible in the previous post which you didn't reply to.

I must have missed this and can't find it, I'm sorry. Could you please repeat it and I'll be happy to answer.
 
You consider crimea being invaded and annexed, and parts of easten Ukraine being under russian control pre Feb2022 as Ukraine "surviving just fine"
Interesting take

I've addressed Crimea. It, along with repayments, needs to be negotiated after open hostilities end. This is how diplomacy works.

Remove the emotive thinking and think logically. Think historically, think realistically. How would history and actual leaders do this?
 
I love how all of you slip up, eventually.

It‘s just weird how none of you realise we have you pegged long before you do.

You're a joke.

It's like imaginary dog-whistles for you vultures. Of course NATO expansionism is a concern for the Russians and to avoid it is a massive blindsight in any computation or modeling of the scenario. Do you think any nation, the most fundimental goal of a nation-state being the defense of the populace doesn't reflect on a nuclear entity moving into it's borders and historical territory which acted as buffers during WW1 and WW2 that cost them untold deaths wouldn't take cause because NATO puts on it's website that it's a "defensive alliance" as they bombed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc? Now, did I support much of this? Yes, but you should always try and simulate what others are thinking given the information and priors they have. The world isn't just you and what's in your head -- good lesson.

Do you think international IR and State and diplomats think like you? I've been to SAIS, I've sat through lectures on IR with people who worked in the Obama and now work in the Biden administration. Let me tell you, they don't.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Member
Honestly the tactic of dumping hundreds of thousands of their own - what are for all intents and purposes - untrained and under-equipped civilians into the middle of the battle is a fucking travesty. I love me a dead orc as much as the next person but Ukraine as the "Good Guy" can't just turn fields of surrendering conscripts into catfood. They need to be captured, processed, stored, fed etc. It's a logistical nightmare.
Actually they CAN, and morally perhaps SHOULD, absolutely CRUSH the first of these conscripts and do it an as horrible and visible way possible in order to strike such fear and drive in the rest to internally resist Russia. Otherwise they are just dragging out the conflict, killing more civilians and ultimately far more of these conscripts.

A counter argument that the war MUST continue until Putin can be removed and his more deadly and catastrophic weapons taken off the table is a decent one, but I think we are past the point where we can assume the lesser evil is better.

The war needs to end and soon, before winter and the fatal ramifications exponentially increase and spread across europe.
 
He's been to SAIS, guys.

You're absolutely right. That doesn't matter. But, I get my info from TikTok and Twitter. Does that change your opinion?

Also, it's not lost on me that throught my time in this thread, I'm continually the only one in discussion with me posting links to sources, articles, journals and expert testimony. Again, I should be posting TikToks, maybe then you'd take notice.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I've addressed Crimea. It, along with repayments, needs to be negotiated after open hostilities end. This is how diplomacy works.

Remove the emotive thinking and think logically. Think historically, think realistically. How would history and actual leaders do this?

‘Negotiated’.

IE: allowing Russia to partially dictate terms of a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities.

I love how you tell us to think historically, but conveniently forget how fascist war criminals like Putin and his countrymen were dealt with 80 years ago.
 
I've addressed Crimea. It, along with repayments, needs to be negotiated after open hostilities end. This is how diplomacy works.

Remove the emotive thinking and think logically. Think historically, think realistically. How would history and actual leaders do this?
But you're assuming that diplomacy in this case would work, when it couldn't

Putin is under his impression that he's negotiating from strength, so he can set out the best terms for himself to the weaker party. Ukraine won't accept that, and shouldn't, therfore not taking his demands, not requests, seriously. Why negotiate with a tyrant?

And why should I remove emotive thinking? I can very easily point out a very famous wartime leader from my country, who used very emotive speeches and emotional pleas to the country and its allies. Emotions, as also shown by Ukriane in its daily briefings and social media posts calling out friends and foes, works amazingly, when done properly. Hell, even Hitler used emotion amazingly well to his advantage leading up to WW2. I'd say emotion and war go hand in hand

Do you think any nation, the most fundimental goal of a nation-state being the defense of the populace doesn't reflect on a nuclear entity moving into it's borders and historical territory which acted as buffers during WW1 and WW2 that cost them untold deaths wouldn't take cause because NATO puts on it's website that it's a "defensive alliance"

I don't understand this? The world has what, 6 or 7 nuclear states, probably a few other ones that haven't stated that they have knowledge or working weapons, but none of the Nato states that have joined recently have that capability

Russia invading another country because of a perceived new nuclear threat is ridiculous, when if USA wanted, they could have destroyed them realistically any time after WW2, or the handful of other nuclear states

In fact Ukraine got rid of its nuclear arsenal to please Russia and Nato, so Russia using it as an excuse is baffling?

If we're talking about historical territory, why not go further? I assume that you're OK with Italy invading Europe if they wanted to reclaim the Roman empire, fair game. Or maybe the Mongals taking back its claims on half of Europe and Russia?

I, and others may be thinking emotionally yes, I'm sure we would all agree with that, but you're not thinking emotionally enough, when war in its true form is when 2 or more countries, cultures, peoples, clans, factions, whatever...hate each other enough to attack each other. Diplomacy should come before war, before emotion gets as far as hatred. After war has started its not diplomacy, its forcing the loser to terms that are set out by the victor(s)
 
With the annexation of mentioned regions tomorrow, what is the possibility of Russia justifying an increase in aggression towards Ukraine by the simple fact that Ukrainians are now """""""officially""""""" attacking Russian territory?
Also with this annexation is it possible that Russia will start drafting the people from these regions, even all the ones that didn't participate (the true 97%) and start throwing Ukrainians against Ukrainians?
Ukraine has been attacking Crimea, """"""officially"""""" a Russian territory (according to Russia, that is) for weeks, if not months now, and Russia hasn't really done much. Why would they do more for those newly annexed territories?
 
‘Negotiated’.

IE: allowing Russia to partially dictate terms of a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities.

I love how you tell us to think historically, but conveniently forget how fascist war criminals like Putin and his countrymen were dealt with 80 years ago.

Was the bombing of Dresden and firebombings of Japan war crimes? Read Malcolm Gladwell's excellent Bomber Mafia book and tell me that Curtis LeMay's actions and over 80% destruction of almost every major city in Japan wouldn't have been prosecuted if the war had gone the other way. The firebombings of Tokyo were so intense that the flightcrews on the B-29s that made up the latter part of the thousand bomber waves were vomiting from the smell of burnt human flesh. What about MacArthur in Korea? Or Kissinger and Nixon in Cambodia? I can play devils advocate all day, I don't fault these actions -- don't get me wrong, but I have the awareness that they exist and that different sides and cultures perceive things differently. The difference between people like you and me is that: (1) I'm aware of the history and (2) maintain the logical ability to put things in perspective and see issues threw the cognitive biases that we all have which takes much effort.

You're a very linear thinker.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Was the bombing of Dresden and firebombings of Japan war crimes? Read Malcolm Gladwell's excellent Bomber Mafia book and tell me that Curtis LeMay's actions and over 80% destruction of almost every major city in Japan wouldn't have been prosecuted if the war had gone the other way. The firebombings of Tokyo were so intense that the flightcrews on the B-29s that made up the latter part of the thousand bomber waves were vomiting from the smell of burnt human flesh. What about MacArthur in Korea? Or Kissinger and Nixon in Cambodia? I can play devils advocate all day, I don't fault these actions -- don't get me wrong, but I have the awareness that they exist and that different sides and cultures perceive things differently. The difference between people like you and me is that: (1) I'm aware of the history and (2) maintain the logical ability to put things in perspective and see issues threw the cognitive biases that we all have which takes much effort.

You're a very linear thinker.

What Does the bombing of Dresden have to do with any of this? You’ll happily quote historical precedent that suits your position, but not any that doesn’t. Faux intellectualism at its finest. You reek of it.

And the difference between you and me is that I see clearly what has to happen in Ukraine that’s best for the Ukrainian people. Whereas you spend your entire time making false equivalences about the situation as it stands, and show an uncomfortably constant willingness and desire for Ukraine to capitulate to Russian aggression.

I’m done talking to you, simply because I don’t think I can stand your whataboutism and thinly veiled support for a compromise that suits Russia.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Gold Member
The idea this has anything to do with NATO expansion is just as bullshit as the idea it’s to denazify Ukraine.

It’s a war of conquest by a dying man trying to cement his legacy by reinventing the USSR. It’s not worth taking the time to debunk the ever changing and conflicting narratives of the Kremlin.
 
But you're assuming that diplomacy in this case would work, when it couldn't

Putin is under his impression that he's negotiating from strength, so he can set out the best terms for himself to the weaker party. Ukraine won't accept that, and shouldn't, therfore not taking his demands, not requests, seriously. Why negotiate with a tyrant?

And why should I remove emotive thinking? I can very easily point out a very famous wartime leader from my country, who used very emotive speeches and emotional pleas to the country and its allies. Emotions, as also shown by Ukriane in its daily briefings and social media posts calling out friends and foes, works amazingly, when done properly. Hell, even Hitler used emotion amazingly well to his advantage leading up to WW2. I'd say emotion and war go hand in hand

We don't know diplomacy wouldn't work. All we have is a report from Ukrainian sources, Ukrainska Pravda, that Zelenskyy and Putin were close to an agreement along the lines of what I'm outlining until the UK (Johnson) said that at the behest of the US they don't support a cease-fire and want them to "push" Russia. Again, as I've said, this isn't simple as the West has it's own geopolitical desires decoupled from what's best for the Ukrainian people.

I don't know, and you don't know, what Putin is thinking. None of us do, not us nor the intelligence services of the West. It's the million dollar question Don't delude yourself.

Emotive thinking is great for rallying people to a cause, I agree! But that's not how you think! Churchill was a logical thinker, not an emotive one. Read his writings, in North Africa he knew Wavell was an old, tired leader and wisely moved him to India and replaced him with Auchinleck, who went on to be a brilliant general in the fight against Rommel. Churchill is widely known to sit and think about what he would say for hours on end, rehearrsing the ideas, the phrasings, the everything until it was perfect. He's not an off-the-cuff person.

Hitler, meanwhile, was brilliant militarily when he was logical in his early war years, as exemplified by his push to adopt alternatives for the invasion of France than the traditional OKW plans going through the low-countries again and he found it in Manstein's idea. It was only later when he deteriorated and became even more of an unhinged fuck that we saw the Stalingrad's or Operation Citadel which if I'm mistaken he actually agreed with a general that it was useless fighting the Soviets were prepared for over nothing yet again. The mental downfall of a madman.

I don't understand this? The world has what, 6 or 7 nuclear states, probably a few other ones that haven't stated that they have knowledge or working weapons, but none of the Nato states that have joined recently have that capability

Russia invading another country because of a perceived new nuclear threat is ridiculous, when if USA wanted, they could have destroyed them realistically any time after WW2, or the handful of other nuclear states

In fact Ukraine got rid of its nuclear arsenal to please Russia and Nato, so Russia using it as an excuse is baffling?

If we're talking about historical territory, why not go further? I assume that you're OK with Italy invading Europe if they wanted to reclaim the Roman empire, fair game. Or maybe the Mongals taking back its claims on half of Europe and Russia?

I, and others may be thinking emotionally yes, I'm sure we would all agree with that, but you're not thinking emotionally enough, when war in its true form is when 2 or more countries, cultures, peoples, clans, factions, whatever...hate each other enough to attack each other. Diplomacy should come before war, before emotion gets as far as hatred. After war has started its not diplomacy, its forcing the loser to terms that are set out by the victor(s)

Sure, let's talk through this. From Russian perspective and priors, they've seen two world wars start in Europe and encroach on them in the 20th century. They, during the cold war, invested the Warsaw Pact as a buffer state of sort. Unearthed documents, such as the 6 days to the Rhine plan show that their war plans were basically a defensive nuclear exchange with a push to secure East Germany and the Central European Countries. They were never really the expansionists that the West made them out to be.

NATO is a nuclear entity and it's been expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, which is ironic to them since it's mission was the containment of the Soviet State. NATO further expanded after the Cold War, adding the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004), Albania and Croatia (2009), Montenegro (2017) and North Macedonia (2020). Of the territories and members added between 1990 and 2020, all were either formerly part of the Warsaw Pact (including the formerly Soviet Baltic states) or territories of the former Yugoslavia.

In neo-liberal nations who are used to thinking in our terms of democracy as a universal good and freedom and liberty as universal desires (of which I agree), places like China and Russia don't yet see this worldview. Russia sees it's historic buffer states being taken away from them and aligned with a nuclear foe. They see system which are defensive, like AEGIS ashore that we're putting in Poland as a threat as the very same launch system can accompadate nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles that can reach Moscow faster than an ICBM from the Dakotas or an SLBM. They find the NMD system in Poland a threat to MAD, even though it's designed to target Iran. They find this destabilizing and it's not exactly wrong thinking given their history and the mechanics of MAD as has worked over the last 70 years.

I do not wish to engage in emotional talk of hatred and such. I find it useless and without utility here.
 
Last edited:
The idea this has anything to do with NATO expansion is just as bullshit as the idea it’s to denazify Ukraine.

It’s a war of conquest by a dying man trying to cement his legacy by reinventing the USSR. It’s not worth taking the time to debunk the ever changing and conflicting narratives of the Kremlin.

So you are of the opinion that the West has done nothing, zero actions which could be interpreted as aggressive? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done them or that I don't agree or would have approved it myself, but I'm also wise to the perception of others. I don't see this type of thinking in here.
 

Liljagare

Member
Also, it's not lost on me that throught my time in this thread, I'm continually the only one in discussion with me posting links to sources, articles, journals and expert testimony.
Selective reading much? Tons of people post sources, articles and expert testimony, that you outright dismiss (probably because they don't agree with your view on things).
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Gold Member
So you are of the opinion that the West has done nothing, zero actions which could be interpreted as aggressive? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done them or that I don't agree or would have approved it myself, but I'm also wise to the perception of others. I don't see this type of thinking in here.
Anything that would remotely justify what Russia has done in Ukraine? Absolutely not. Baltic states wanted to join NATO because they knew Russia for what it was and is. Russia proved they were prudent to do so by launching an unprovoked genocidal invasion.

You might feel disrespected if I spit on the ground while passing you by on the street, but that doesn't mean that's any sort of justification to pull out a gun and blow my head off. I don't understand the propensity for some to expect the west to search for reasons to self-flagellate because Russia decided to launch an unprovoked genocidal campaign.
 
Top Bottom